Ron Paul will vote FOR House resolution condemning attack in Arizona

[bobbyw24]

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, notorious for casting the sole vote against scores of House resolutions, will support Wednesday’s resolution to condemn Saturday’s shooting in Arizona and honor the victims.

“He supports the resolution,” Paul spokesman Rachel Mills told The Daily Caller in an email.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/12/ron-paul-will-vote-for-house-resolution-condemning-attack-in-arizona/#ixzz1AqlOJJeZ

[TXcarlosTX]

He playing the game! Looks like he might actually want to win the Presidency this time around.

[Vessol]

Why the fuck do you need a House resolution condemning the attacks?

[MRoCkEd]

I wish Ron was consistent on these non-binding resolutions. Unless I'm missing why he votes for some but not others?

[klamath]

It doesn't cost anything to pass this, and it happened on US soil. RP votes against condemnation involving FOREIGN countries.

[Brett85]

I was wondering about this. I'm glad that Ron is voting for the resolution. It's important to choose your battles wisely.

[Vessol]

I wish Ron was consistent on these non-binding resolutions.

While I can understand, this particular issue would be a retarded one to stand against on such an issue while people are still in the emotional and not the logical stage.

[qh4dotcom]

Why the fuck do you need a House resolution condemning the attacks?

Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to issue such a resolution?

[Matt Collins]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

[Vessol]

Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to issue such a resolution?

Good point. But as I stated above, this is an emotional issue currently, right now it's not wise to muck into it.

I think it's retarded though and a SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE VICTIMS. It's basically a bunch of fucking politicians trying to "out-sorry" themselves and to try to look good in the media. The last thing I'd want if I was the victim of that shooting is all this fucking media attention and CONGRESS MAKING A FUCKING CONDEMNATION, JEE IM SO GLAD THAT CONGRESS CONDEMNS AND DOESNT APPROVE THIS!

((Edit: Sorry if my posts for the past few days have contained a number of explecitives, I've just been getting more angry than usual over news stories. I think I caught what AF has got :P))

[erowe1]

I wish Ron was consistent on these non-binding resolutions. Unless I'm missing why he votes for some but not others?

Often resolutions, even though they're nonbinding, include language that has some kind of call for Congress to pass some non-specific legislation in support of whatever the cause is. So in those cases, RP is definitely right to vote no consistently. But if a resolution doesn't have anything like that in it, then I don't see why it matters which way he votes.

[LisaNY]

IF the dems change the script on the house floor I trust Ron will change that vote.

[Brett85]

Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to issue such a resolution?

Well since it's a non binding resolution does it really even matter? It's not a law that has any affect on anything.

[pacelli]

Anyone have a link to the text of the resolution?

[UtahApocalypse]

They are not "working" this week anyways so no time or money spent.

[johnrocks]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

This

[Philhelm]

I think it's retarded though and a SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE VICTIMS. It's basically a bunch of fucking politicians trying to "out-sorry" themselves and to try to look good in the media. The last thing I'd want if I was the victim of that shooting is all this fucking media attention and CONGRESS MAKING A FUCKING CONDEMNATION, JEE IM SO GLAD THAT CONGRESS CONDEMNS AND DOESNT APPROVE THIS!

((Edit: Sorry if my posts for the past few days have contained a number of explecitives, I've just been getting more angry than usual over news stories. I think I caught what AF has got :P))

That is how I feel about it too. They may as well condemn rain on weekends and ants at a picnic. I hate, Hate, HATE these emotional, political suckfests that always ensue after situations such as these.

[Bergie Bergeron]

You might as well say goodbye to Ron Paul 2012 if he votes against it. Nothing fiscal or binding in there, his integrity is face.

[low preference guy]

I would've voted against it. There is no authority in the Constitution. Weren't they going to cite the authority from the Constitution for anything they pass? What are they going to use to justify this?

[specsaregood]

I would've voted against it. There is no authority in the Constitution. Weren't they going to cite the authority from the Constitution for anything they pass? What are they going to use to justify this?

Is this not just the members taking advantage of the 1st amendment?

[Heimdallr]

He should just abstain.

[lester1/2jr]

It's good that we know where they stand on this.

[low preference guy]

Is this not just the members taking advantage of the 1st amendment?

sure. still, i don't see the point. why condemn attacks to members of congress only? or do they vote for a resolution every time an american is attacked? since this is not the case, do they form some sort of clique to protect themselves more than they protect the general public? the answer is yes, but they shouldn't rub it in our faces like this.

people should be treated equally. if congress is going to approve a resolution for this, they should at least vote for one every single time an innocent american is violently attacked.

[acptulsa]

Is this not just the members taking advantage of the 1st amendment?

'Put a U.S. Senator in a room with more than two people and there ain't any power on Earth that can stop him from making a speech.'--Will Rogers

Thank God it didn't cost us anything. For once. (And, yes, I realize this is the House. Still.)

[jmdrake]

Most of the non-binding resolutions condemn some other country so there's his non intervention principles to think about. This one will just condemn the man responsible. And since the GOP is in power it will likely not say stupid stuff like "We condemn the out of control gun culture" or "We condemn the virulent partisan rhetoric that led to this."

[Matt Collins]

Maybe it will instead keep Congress from spending their time on something that will actually limit our liberty. Keep these guys occupied.

[RM918]

Most of the non-binding resolutions condemn some other country so there's his non intervention principles to think about. This one will just condemn the man responsible. And since the GOP is in power it will likely not say stupid stuff like "We condemn the out of control gun culture" or "We condemn the virulent partisan rhetoric that led to this."

Exactly. Paul does vote for stuff like this if it's not allocating money, forwarding some law or condemning another country. He's done it in the past like when he voted to praise the Gators or somesuch team. There's nothing inconsistent about it.

[Vessol]

Maybe it will instead keep Congress from spending their time on something that will actually limit our liberty. Keep these guys occupied.

I say we recommend that the new Congress spends all its time condemning all sorts of random things in America

"We condemn Little Ceasars Pizza for selling shitty cardboard disguised as pizza"

[rich34]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

Right on Brotha.. Also a lot of those resolutions in the past that Ron as voted against have been to condemn foreign countries. This being the United States and obviously the politics of it, he's got to folks. Settle down, this doesn't cost any money..

[idirtify]

There's nothing inconsistent about it.

Unless the resolution is a prelude to something with teeth, that we don't know about.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'd like to see a House resolution condemning the **** Sapiens for driving the Neanderthals into extinction.

[idirtify]

Let’s trick them into making a resolution condemning unconstitutional bills, sending anyone involved in their passage to federal prison for 5 years minimum.

[PreDeadMan]

Why the fuck do you need a House resolution condemning the attacks?

exactly lol....

[yoshimaroka]

He playing the game! Looks like he might actually want to win the Presidency this time around.

Would anyone teach their kids that in order to advance to the top, you have to sellout your principles to "play the game"?

This resolution is BS.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

That argument is flawed. The same could be said about Ron Paul having voted no on some resolutions that basically say: 'hey, we feel bad for you' for severe weather victims.

[sratiug]

I'd like to point out that since the woman was in the House that sort of does make it house business and Ron Paul is probably the only member actually against the initiation of force.

[sratiug]

Maybe we could trick them into passing a bill saying the initiation of force is never acceptable either toward or against the government and its agents?

[sailingaway]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

It costs money wasting congressional time on an issue, but it is about a Congresswoman and federal judge amongst others... not about foreign country internal affairs. Ron voted for the plaque commemorating slaves that built the Capital, too, that being uniquely Congress's concern.

He is consistent; you just need to ask his office why he voted a particular way if you don't know.

[Cherder]

I say we recommend that the new Congress spends all its time condemning all sorts of random things in America

"We condemn Little Ceasars Pizza for selling shitty cardboard disguised as pizza"

Made me lol :D

[Fredom101]

THis whole thing is absurd.
Congress needs to vote to decide on whether this was a bad thing or not?

I guess when your whole organization is based on violence, you need all the propaganda you can drum up.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I would've voted against it. There is no authority in the Constitution. Weren't they going to cite the authority from the Constitution for anything they pass? What are they going to use to justify this?

I think in this one instance, it might be wise for Ron to vote for the resolution. Its a political grenade that can be lobbed at him (and us) if he doesn't. There is also the fact that this doesn't allocate money or promote government waste, at least on the surface.

[sailingaway]

Someone posted here once something like 'At this point, Ron could vote for every meaningless non-binding resolution from here until dollar failure and it wouldn't impact my opinion of him.....'

I'm pretty much there. Still, I DO like that he is consistent even in the little things.

[LibertyEagle]

You might as well say goodbye to Ron Paul 2012 if he votes against it. Nothing fiscal or binding in there, his integrity is face.

Yup. I don't understand why others cannot see that.

[jmdrake]

That argument is flawed. The same could be said about Ron Paul having voted no on some resolutions that basically say: 'hey, we feel bad for you' for severe weather victims.

I've never seen any resolution that Ron voted against that either didn't either cost money or wasn't some undercover foreign policy slap at some other country. Please cite what you are talking about.

[idirtify]

Maybe we could trick them into passing a bill saying the initiation of force is never acceptable either toward or against the government and its agents?

Brilliant. Then after they pass it, the cry will come out against what they have indirectly implied; that initiation of force against civilians is OK. And then they will realize that they have shot themselves in the foot. The question then is: Will they be stupid enough to comply with the outcry and pass a resolution that the initiation of force against the people is never acceptable – thereby nullifying their own existence?

[BuddyRey]

((Edit: Sorry if my posts for the past few days have contained a number of explecitives, I've just been getting more angry than usual over news stories. I think I caught what AF has got :P))

No problem. I think I've recently picked up a case of that as well.

[libertybrewcity]

If RP were to vote against it then wave goodbye to any chance of getting the nomination. The inter-web tore him to pieces because he voted against the chinese guy.

[tsai3904]

Text of H. Res. 32:

H. Res. 32

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 12, 2011.

Whereas on January 8, 2011, an armed gunman opened fire at a `Congress on your Corner' event hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, killing 6 and wounding at least 14 others;

Whereas Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Zimmerman lost their lives in this attack;

Whereas Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old daughter of John and Roxanna Green, was born on September 11, 2001, and was a third grader with an avid interest in government who was recently elected to the student council at Mesa Verde Elementary School;

Whereas Dorothy Morris, who was 76 years old, attended the January 8 event with George, her husband of over 50 years with whom she had 2 daughters, and who was also critically injured as he tried to shield her from the shooting;

Whereas John Roll, a Pennsylvania native who was 63 years old, began his professional career as a bailiff in 1972, was appointed to the Federal bench in 1991, and became chief judge for the District of Arizona in 2006, and was a devoted husband to his wife Maureen, father to his 3 sons, and grandfather to his 5 grandchildren;

Whereas Phyllis Schneck, a proud mother of 3, grandmother of 7, and great-grandmother from New Jersey, was spending the winter in Arizona, and was a 79-year-old church volunteer and New York Giants fan;

Whereas Dorwan Stoddard, a 76-year-old retired construction worker and volunteer at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ, is credited with shielding his wife Mavy, a longtime friend whom he married while they were in their 60s, who was also injured in the shooting;

Whereas Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman, who was 30 years old and engaged to be married, served as Director of Community Outreach to Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and was a social worker before serving with Representative Giffords;

Whereas Representative Gabrielle Giffords was a target of this attack, and remains in critical condition at an Arizona hospital;

Whereas 13 others were also wounded in the shooting, including Ron Barber and Pamela Simon, both staffers to Representative Giffords; and

Whereas several individuals, including Patricia Maisch, Army Col. Bill Badger (Retired), who was also wounded in the shooting, Roger Sulzgeber, Joseph Zimudio, and Daniel Hernandez, Jr., helped apprehend the gunman and assist the injured, thereby risking their lives for the safety of others, and should be commended for their bravery: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific attack which occurred at the `Congress on your Corner' event hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011;

(2) offers its heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of those who were killed in that attack;

(3) expresses its hope for the rapid and complete recovery of those wounded in the shooting;

(4) honors the memory of Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Zimmerman;

(5) applauds the bravery and quick thinking exhibited by those individuals who prevented the gunman from potentially taking more lives and helped to save those who had been wounded;

(6) recognizes the service of the first responders who raced to the scene and the health care professionals who tended to the victims once they reached the hospital, whose service and skill saved lives;

(7) reaffirms the bedrock principle of American democracy and representative government, which is memorialized in the First Amendment of the Constitution and which Representative Gabrielle Giffords herself read in the Hall of the House of Representatives on January 6, 2011, of `the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances';

(8) stands firm in its belief in a democracy in which all can participate and in which intimidation and threats of violence cannot silence the voices of any American;

(9) honors the service and leadership of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a distinguished member of this House, as she courageously fights to recover; and

(10) when adjourning today, shall do so out of respect to the victims of this attack.

Attest:

Clerk.

[Stary Hickory]

Um why is Ron Paul voting for this? If he does not does he automatically condone violence? I really do not get it, it's a stupid political stunt and not a Constitutionally mandated area...it's a waste of time and does nothing at all.

RP sort of dissapoints me by engaging in pointless politicking. He is one who I would have thought would have been the first to sidestep such foolishness.

Again...so if you do not engage is this sad political stunt it means you condone violence?

.......In other news rapists are bad lets vote on that too

[klamath]

Text of H. Res. 32:

H. Res. 32

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 12, 2011.

Whereas on January 8, 2011, an armed gunman opened fire at a `Congress on your Corner' event hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, killing 6 and wounding at least 14 others;

Whereas Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Zimmerman lost their lives in this attack;

Whereas Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old daughter of John and Roxanna Green, was born on September 11, 2001, and was a third grader with an avid interest in government who was recently elected to the student council at Mesa Verde Elementary School;

Whereas Dorothy Morris, who was 76 years old, attended the January 8 event with George, her husband of over 50 years with whom she had 2 daughters, and who was also critically injured as he tried to shield her from the shooting;

Whereas John Roll, a Pennsylvania native who was 63 years old, began his professional career as a bailiff in 1972, was appointed to the Federal bench in 1991, and became chief judge for the District of Arizona in 2006, and was a devoted husband to his wife Maureen, father to his 3 sons, and grandfather to his 5 grandchildren;

Whereas Phyllis Schneck, a proud mother of 3, grandmother of 7, and great-grandmother from New Jersey, was spending the winter in Arizona, and was a 79-year-old church volunteer and New York Giants fan;

Whereas Dorwan Stoddard, a 76-year-old retired construction worker and volunteer at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ, is credited with shielding his wife Mavy, a longtime friend whom he married while they were in their 60s, who was also injured in the shooting;

Whereas Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman, who was 30 years old and engaged to be married, served as Director of Community Outreach to Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and was a social worker before serving with Representative Giffords;

Whereas Representative Gabrielle Giffords was a target of this attack, and remains in critical condition at an Arizona hospital;

Whereas 13 others were also wounded in the shooting, including Ron Barber and Pamela Simon, both staffers to Representative Giffords; and

Whereas several individuals, including Patricia Maisch, Army Col. Bill Badger (Retired), who was also wounded in the shooting, Roger Sulzgeber, Joseph Zimudio, and Daniel Hernandez, Jr., helped apprehend the gunman and assist the injured, thereby risking their lives for the safety of others, and should be commended for their bravery: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific attack which occurred at the `Congress on your Corner' event hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011;

(2) offers its heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of those who were killed in that attack;

(3) expresses its hope for the rapid and complete recovery of those wounded in the shooting;

(4) honors the memory of Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Zimmerman;

(5) applauds the bravery and quick thinking exhibited by those individuals who prevented the gunman from potentially taking more lives and helped to save those who had been wounded;

(6) recognizes the service of the first responders who raced to the scene and the health care professionals who tended to the victims once they reached the hospital, whose service and skill saved lives;

(7) reaffirms the bedrock principle of American democracy and representative government, which is memorialized in the First Amendment of the Constitution and which Representative Gabrielle Giffords herself read in the Hall of the House of Representatives on January 6, 2011, of `the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances';

(8) stands firm in its belief in a democracy in which all can participate and in which intimidation and threats of violence cannot silence the voices of any American;

(9) honors the service and leadership of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a distinguished member of this House, as she courageously fights to recover; and

(10) when adjourning today, shall do so out of respect to the victims of this attack.

Attest:

Clerk.

I have no problem with that resolution. No tax payers money is being spent and no intervention in foreign affairs.

[Stary Hickory]

Beans give you gas..true story I demand a vote proclaiming beans to be a vile flatulence inducer!

[jmdrake]

Um why is Ron Paul voting for this? If he does not does he automatically condone violence? I really do not get it, it's a stupid political stunt and not a Constitutionally mandated area...it's a waste of time and does nothing at all.

RP sort of dissapoints me by engaging in pointless politicking. He is one who I would have thought would have been the first to sidestep such foolishness.

Again...so if you do not engage is this sad political stunt it means you condone violence?

.......In other news rapists are bad lets vote on that too

The constitution doesn't prohibit it either. This isn't a case of spending other people's money or getting involved in someone else's politics. In short none of the reasons Dr. Paul has given in the past for voting "no" on certain items applies here. Ron Paul doesn't vote no just to vote note. He always has, and gives, a specific reason.

[Stary Hickory]

The constitution doesn't prohibit it either. This isn't a case of spending other people's money or getting involved in someone else's politics. In short none of the reasons Dr. Paul has given in the past for voting "no" on certain items applies here. Ron Paul doesn't vote no just to vote note. He always has, and gives, a specific reason.

Ok man well you have taken a position that is the direct OPPOSITE of what the Constitution is all about. The tenth amendment pretty much annihilates your whole argument. If it is not specifically enumerated as a power it CANNOT be done. But by all means lets start getting stuff all backwards and say if the Constituion does say that the government can't do it then its ok...of course we have to ignore the tenth amendment and the whole idea of limited government...but who gives a krap right?

It's not like this is some dastardly attack on our freedoms...I am not going to lose sleep over it...but Ron Paul always votes according to the Constitution...in this case he is fudging it...and for what gain? So I guess Ron Paul votes according to the Constitution most of the time...almost always....thats not nearly as good as saying he always does.

And for what some political stunt?

[jmdrake]

Ok man well you have taken a position that is the direct OPPOSITE of what the Constitution is all about. The tenth amendment pretty much annihilates your whole argument. If it is not specifically enumerated as a power it CANNOT be done. But by all means lets start getting stuff all backwards and say if the Constituion does say that the government can't do it then its ok...of course we have to ignore the tenth amendment and the whole idea of limited government...but who gives a krap right?


Wrong. You've just proven that you don't understand the 10th amendment in particular and the legislature in general. A non binding resolution doesn't DO anything. All that's happened is that a bunch of congressmen have voted to say "Yeah, I agree with this". And? So? Really, go to law school and audit a class on the constitution. Or attend Michael Badnarik's class on the constitution. Or read some good books. Non binding resolutions don't in general mean jack. Sometimes they should be voted against because there is some real effect (like condemning some other country when that is none of our business). In this case it means nothing.